The Scottish government has scrapped a pilot of juryless trials for rape cases, which aimed to tackle endemic low conviction rates for sexual assault prosecution, after a backlash from the highest levels of the legal profession.
If you cannot persuade a jury that what happened was a crime then, by the standards of the populace, what happened was not a crime.
Yes, yes, judges hate jury nullification. But it is that last bulwark against an oppressive legislature.
“Constance went on to announce amendments to the bill to allow for more detailed research into jury deliberations, as well as further work to challenge rape myths, for example, “interventions or educational resources for jurors and the wider public”.”
Great! Giving prospective jurors a pamphlet to take into the jury box will surely work wonders…
The system was already rigged against jury trials. If you are accused of a crime and you plead guilty, then you receive a lessor sentence than if you went to trial (typically about half the normal sentence). On top of that, you would not be out of pocket on your legal expenses which can go into 6 figures for a typical trial.
I would not be surprised that a certain number of the people who plead guilty are in fact innocent but simply go along with it because because they want to move on as quickly as possible and not to ruin themselves financially.
They brought this in because they tried fitting Alex Salmond up with false accusations of rape, and a jury found him not guilty.
Interesting how Mark Heath, ex prison officer, was recently found not guilty of “stirring up racial hatred” by tweeting an Islamic sounding name following the Southport atrocity. He opted for jury trial, whereas lots of other people are doing a couple of years inside after pleading guilty. There should be a form of “reverse jury nobbling” where you meet the jurors, shake them warmly by the hand, and buy them a huge sugary canned latte.
Of course, the poor sods now doing a couple of years for tweets or placards fell foul of intense police pressure to lock people away before the truth became known. Our elite are truly, deeply despicable.
In England we seem to have dispensed with the jury, by fixing the problem else where in the chain. If you are white you are far-right and arrested for looking at Plod “in a funny way”, tried, convicted and sentenced at a speed which would make Albert revisit some of his theories, whereas if you are a religious person of a certain type, Plod loses his specs and needs three months to find a nasty chemical and a pdf on your computer. It must be that their sniffer dogs can detect computer files of the Huw Edwards variety much more easily, which I’m sure will be the highlight of many a Christmas party…
Simon – never plead guilty, never talk to cops, always make them do all the work.
No doubt the government will just ramp up the difficulties in the process for the accused so that punishment becomes harsher.
I can’t help but wonder what legal advice from the duty brief those arrested during the riots received.I suspect it was along the lines of “better to plead guilty & get it over, the worst you can expect is a short custodial.” Didn’t quite work out like that, did it? As people should be able to work out for themselves; legal advice is worth what you pay for it.
The frontal assault may have failed, but the undermine works will continue out of sight.
They brought this in because they tried fitting Alex Salmond up with false accusations of rape, and a jury found him not guilty.
It couldn’t have happened to a nicer man, though…
I suppose it’s revealing of the competence of the SNP government that they failed to “fit up” a guy who everyone knew to be a sex pest and a bully.
Why not just charge him with what he had done rather than what he hadn’t?
Jury nullification or jury independence occurs when a jury fails to convict despite the evidence being beyond reasonable doubt. They do so where they feel the legislation under which the case has been brought is wrong, or that despite technically a crime other factors mean the prosecution is unjust.
I think it also works in the opposite direction when someone is found guilty despite the evidence being insufficient to warrant it.
‘The case was heard by a judge alone because the issue of youth crime was a key debate during last weekend’s state government elections – and it was feared this could prejudice a jury.’
Must admit I didn’t know ‘they’ could just cancel a jury trial like this.
(bbc.com/news/articles/cwyx722590jo)